Is Orson Scott Card homophobic?

[The Real Will]

[quote name='sio' post='1708863' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.20']You seem to misunderstand OSC's position on the matter. He has expressed nothing that indicates that he has an issue with people being attracted to those of the same gender - in fact he's said the exact opposite. What he has a stated problem with is sexual intercourse and marriage. That's all, two controllable actions.[/quote]

You do understand that this is almost the definition of anti-homosexual bigotry, right? As kuntotte said, it is ok to be homosexual so long as you don't actually do anything gay, is not the most open minded of concepts.

[The Man]

It's worth pointing out that all of the arguments against gay marriage are pretty much indistinguishable from the arguments that were advanced against miscegenation in the '60s, and if applied now to miscegenation they'd seem ridiculous. Then again I'm pretty convinced sio is just trolling now so I don't know how much I'll bother with this thread in the future.

[sio]

[quote name='The Man' post='1708865' date='Mar 5 2009, 17.51']No, I don't misunderstand his position at all. He's a bigot for disapproving of their right to have sexual intercourse with, or marry, the person of their choosing, the same way heterosexuals can. They [i]can't control[/i] the fact that they're only attracted to their own gender, yet has expressed no qualms with these actions being performed by heterosexuals. This is the part that you seem to be missing. He would deny rights to a small subset of the populace which he would extend to the remainder of the populace; this is the very definition of bigotry.[/quote]

They can't stop having the attraction, that's true. Some people can't stop feeling the urge to punch certain authority figures (me included). Yet most of us are able to not do it, because (in a some cases) they would not consider it ethical. Some would contend that it is ethically acceptable to hit people who deserve it, whatever that means to the person holding the belief. Some would say that it's okay to hit males in this situation but not females (see the previous thread on hitting women for an example), a clear double standard.

OSC has a warped view of morality. That doesn't mean he's a bigot.

[sio]

[quote name='The Man' post='1708878' date='Mar 5 2009, 18.07']Then again I'm pretty convinced sio is just trolling now so I don't know how much I'll bother with this thread in the future.[/quote]

The door is open. But I'm not trolling. I honestly don't believe that OSC is a bigot.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='sio' post='1708879' date='Mar 5 2009, 02.38']They can't stop having the attraction, that's true. Some people can't stop feeling the urge to punch certain authority figures (me included). Yet most of us are able to not do it, because (in a some cases) they would not consider it ethical. Some would contend that it is ethically acceptable to hit people who deserve it, whatever that means to the person holding the belief. Some would say that it's okay to hit males in this situation but not females (see the previous thread on hitting women for an example), a clear double standard.

OSC has a warped view of morality. That doesn't mean he's a bigot.[/quote]

Are you just gonna argue via really shitty and inapplicable analogy all day, or do you actually have something persuasive and worthwhile to offer?

[The Man]

[quote]They can't stop having the attraction, that's true. Some people can't stop feeling the urge to punch certain authority figures (me included). Yet most of us are able to not do it, because (in a some cases) they would not consider it ethical. Some would contend that it is ethically acceptable to hit people who deserve it, whatever that means to the person holding the belief. Some would say that it's okay to hit males in this situation but not females (see the previous thread on hitting women for an example), a clear double standard.[/quote]
You can't seriously be this obtuse, can you? The reason OSC is a bigot is because he wishes for the law to deny a privilege, marrying or having sexual intercourse with a consenting person [i]of one's choosing[/i], to a small minority, homosexuals, which he would extend to the majority, heterosexuals, thereby effectively making the minority, homosexuals, into second-class citizens. That is the very definition of bigotry. The law treats the punching of authority figures in the same manner whether the authority figure is male or female. The law does not treat marriage in the same way with respect to heterosexuals and homosexuals. There is a clear dichotomy and you've once again drawn up an analogy that plainly does not fit.

[The Real Will]

[quote name='sio' post='1708879' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.38']They can't stop having the attraction, that's true. Some people can't stop feeling the urge to punch certain authority figures (me included). Yet most of us are able to not do it, because (in a some cases) they would not consider it ethical. Some would contend that it is ethically acceptable to hit people who deserve it, whatever that means to the person holding the belief. Some would say that it's okay to hit males in this situation but not females (see the previous thread on hitting women for an example), a clear double standard.[/quote]

Just to be clear, do you personally equate homosexuality with punching people, or are you just suggesting that OSC might feel that way?

[quote name='sio' post='1708879' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.38']OSC has a warped view of morality. That doesn't mean he's a bigot.[/quote]

No, if his sense of morality tells him that there is something wrong with homosexuality--that is living a full homosexual life style including sleeping with people of the same sex--if he see their actions as morally wrong then he has a bigotry toward them, regardless of what he thinks about them as people separated from their actions.

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Less personal insults please.

[/MOD]

[sio]

[quote name='Will' post='1708887' date='Mar 5 2009, 18.13']Just to be clear, do you personally equate homosexuality with punching people, or are you just suggesting that OSC might feel that way?



No, if his sense of morality tells him that there is something wrong with homosexuality--that is living a full homosexual life style including sleeping with people of the same sex--if he see their actions as morally wrong then he has a bigotry toward them, regardless of what he thinks about them as people separated from their actions.[/quote]

Of course I don't equate homosexuality with punching people. I'm not even suggesting that OSC might feel that way. What I'm trying to say is that morality is subjective, and that expressing an opinion that a given act is wrong and should be illegal *never* equates to bigotry. Bigotry is a prejudicial view of a group of people, which is entirely separate from a prejudicial view of an action. And I'm going to leave it at that.

[The Man]

The problem is that when you extend to saying a given act is only wrong when [i]some people[/i] do it based entirely on factors those people can't control, you've inherently crossed the line into bigotry.

[Artas]

[quote]OSC is OK with gay people, but only if they're not behaving like gay people? Well that's fine then, he's obviously not a bigot. How could we ever have thought that he was? I mean, he's willing to green-light the gays for inclusion in society as long as they reject their sexuality and live like straight people. In my book, that makes OSC a pretty stand-up guy and definitely not bigoted!


What a bunch of bullshit.[/quote]

Quoted for truth.

If whites were allowed to download stuff and blacks weren't, you'd have a good analogy. If hitting men would constitute a greater crime than hitting women, you'd have a good analogy. Your reasoning makes no sense to me.

[The Real Will]

[quote name='sio' post='1708894' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.48']Of course I don't equate homosexuality with punching people. I'm not even suggesting that OSC might feel that way. What I'm trying to say is that morality is subjective, and that expressing an opinion that a given act is wrong and should be illegal *never* equates to bigotry. Bigotry is a prejudicial view of a group of people, which is entirely separate from a prejudicial view of an action. And I'm going to leave it at that.[/quote]

Of course opinions on legality can be equated to bigotry. If the thing you want to outlaw is a defining feature of a group of people (or more fairly, is an action arising naturally from the defining feature of a group of people), and their practicing of it hurts no one, then making it illegal would be exercising a huge bigotry toward those people. Especially if you allow those exact same actions to everyone else. Morality might very well be subjective, but the things you choose to find immoral say a great deal about your character, and your opinions of others.

[Lupigis]

[quote name='sio' post='1708894' date='Mar 5 2009, 09.48']Of course I don't equate homosexuality with punching people. I'm not even suggesting that OSC might feel that way. What I'm trying to say is that morality is subjective, and that expressing an opinion that a given act is wrong and should be illegal *never* equates to bigotry. Bigotry is a prejudicial view of a group of people, which is entirely separate from a prejudicial view of an action. And I'm going to leave it at that.[/quote]
sio, I have a question.

Assume that I were to invent a new religion (just as Joseph Smith invented Mormonism in the 19th century). In this new religion, it would be sinful for black people to marry or to have sex. Assume further that I would declare that I had nothing against black people as such, just the act of black people having sex, and that I would actively argue in favour of legislation making it illegal for black people to marry.

In this fictional scenario, I would only be "expressing an opinion that a given act is wrong and should be illegal". And so I ask you:

Would you really, truly say that this religion was not racist? Would you really, truly believe that I was not a racist person?

[sio]

I think perhaps we have different definitions of 'racism'.

I was using something like this:

[quote name='Merriam-Webster' date=' def. 1']a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race[/quote]

Whereas perhaps you are working with something like this:

[quote name='Merriam-Webster' date=' def. 2']racial prejudice or discrimination[/quote]

Is this the case?

[Lupigis]

[quote name='sio' post='1708917' date='Mar 5 2009, 10.41']Is this the case?[/quote]

Yes.

[sio]

[quote name='Lupigis' post='1708919' date='Mar 5 2009, 19.15']Yes.[/quote]

Then this entire thread was based on a semantic misunderstanding.

I've learned my lesson. Not starting another thread without clear agreed-on definitions of terms used at the top.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='The Man' post='1708859' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.17']Religions may choose to carry out or not carry out ceremonies as they choose, as the state has no business regulating religion; however, I will cheerfully deride whichever religions I choose for precisely this reason. Religion has no business dictating the actions of state either.[/quote]

Being of the religious set I fully agree with what you've said. The only people Religion has a right to dictate to are those who have willingly given it their ascent to do so.

[quote name='Will' post='1708871' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.30']It is not a difficult line to draw at all, and I'll go a step further than the Man in drawing it. Marriage should be between beings that are legally capable of giving consent. That should cut out dogs, minors, and electrical appliances. But do you really want to be equating homosexuals with dogs?[/quote]

I have to disagree with that. The ability to give consent can't be based on the law since the law can be changed. The law could say that if a dog willingly licks your balls (or the corresponding female part) that is consent; or if a child stares at your nakedness, that is consent. The ability to give consent has to be based in principle. One principle is freedom, the other is possessing the requisite capacity to make a sound judgement. A dog is free, but lacks the capacity, a child is not free (i.e. is subject to coercion and intimidation by the older party) and up to a certain age lacks the capacity. I would be more inclined to say whoever is capable of making an informed decision, based on reasonable knowledge of the complexities and consequences of sex/marriage. But again people have to collectively agree on what are the basic principles governing society.

As to the subject at hand. It sounds to me like sio and Card are playing at semantics here. Technically it can be argued that Card is not homophobic, but the popular meaning of the word is not the same as the technical meaning of the word, and in the popular meaning of the word Card certainly seems like a homophobe to me.

So let's make it quite clear about the popular meaning of the term: No matter what your personal morality happens to be, to state that you think homosexual people should be denied the ability to marry in a country which claims to operate on the principle of separation of church and state and the secularisation of its laws is by it's very nature a homophobic position. And even worse is to state that you think homosexual sex should be banned.

I have no problem at all with the religious moral laws that govern my behaviour differing from the moral laws of my country, even to the extent that the laws of my country might force me to behave in a manner contrary to my religion's laws and principles. The only thing I won't do is obey a law that requires me to renounce my religion.

I freely submit to the laws of my religion and strive to follow them. But part of that morality is that everyone must be free to investigate and determine the truth for themselves, which means the freedom to totally reject every law and principle contained within my religion, and of course to reject the religion itself.

[ldygrffn]

when we use the word marriage, are we talking about a Christian ceremony, or a Muslim ceremony, or a Navajo ceremony, or a Hindu ceremony.....

the united states recognizes the religious ceremonies of a vast array of believers, some of whom have nothing in common in their spiritual practices beyond the fact that, in the English language, the term for life partnership is called "marriage." yes, for each of these religions, marriage is a spiritual bonding of two souls for eternity, or whatever, but even two athiests can be legally married, as long as they are of opposite sexes.

so, if we prohibit the marriage of two consenting and intellectually sound adults, who, btw, could possibly be of one of the several Christian denominations who accept homosexuals, how is this not state-sanctioned bigotry? and how is card not a bigot for publicly positing these ideas?

[The Iceman of the North]

[quote name='sio' post='1708920' date='Mar 5 2009, 10.48']Then this entire thread was based on a semantic misunderstanding.

I've learned my lesson. Not starting another thread without clear agreed-on definitions of terms used at the top.[/quote]
sio, you don't live in a vacuum. Taking the term 'homophobia' and looking at the '-phobia' part of the term and believe that this makes the term limited to those who have a 'phobia' towards gay people, doesn't take into account how that term is understood by the majority of people living on this planet.

If you're making arguments based on a term, and you chose a definition that is different from that of most other people, you need to ask yourself if there is a point in making an argument that x is not y by your definition, as long as x is y by the most used definition.

[The Real Will]

[quote name='The Anti-Targ' post='1708933' date='Mar 5 2009, 21.21']I have to disagree with that. The ability to give consent can't be based on the law since the law can be changed. The law could say that if a dog willingly licks your balls (or the corresponding female part) that is consent; or if a child stares at your nakedness, that is consent. The ability to give consent has to be based in principle. One principle is freedom, the other is possessing the requisite capacity to make a sound judgement. A dog is free, but lacks the capacity, a child is not free (i.e. is subject to coercion and intimidation by the older party) and up to a certain age lacks the capacity. I would be more inclined to say whoever is capable of making an informed decision, based on reasonable knowledge of the complexities and consequences of sex/marriage. But again people have to collectively agree on what are the basic principles governing society.[/quote]

I don't complete disagree, and your position on who should be able to marry is entirely reasonable. I would like to say, though, that for a legal definition of who should be able to enter into what is effectively, from a legal standpoint, a contract, the current legal requirements and restriction (that apply in all other situations) are not an unreasonable place to begin. If the law changes and in the future a dog can legally consent to something by licking itself, then that will probably be because societal opinions of dogs capacity have shifted. If a dogs is ever legally allowed to enter a contract then I will be willing to consider allowing them to marry.

My point was that there can be no suggestion of a slippery slope between gay marriage and canine marriage. Gay marriage is a simple extension of our laws in order to include a group of people who are already equally treated under every other law in existence (in the countries of the people involved in this conversation at any rate). People marrying dogs would effectively require overturning our entire legal system (at least the part involved with contracts and volition), probably a complete change of our social structure, and possibly even a change in the way that we relate to dogs in general.

I know you aren't suggesting, at all, that there might be such a slippery slope, but I think the line I'd draw as to who can marry and who cannot has the benefit of being objective, easily applicable, and consistent with all of our other laws. It should kill any talk of dogs and Electroluxes dead.